Wakefield

10 Feb

The name alone conjures up strong images for many in the autism communities. If you think vaccines cause autism, he is a hero. For many others, he has brought shame to the greater autism community.

In addition, I know many who think that Andrew Wakefield’s time has come and gone and we should just ignore him now. To those, I apologize, but the recent information is just too important to ignore.

Kev would be able to show the annoyance that Dr. Wakefield’s research has caused many of us in the autism community. It would be a better read than this–a post written by someone who finds the entire affair sad. Too much harm has been caused by what even before today was already pretty obviously bad science. It’s just a sad story that has just gotten sadder.

For those who may not know, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was the lead author on the papers which attempted to link autism to the MMR vaccine. The story is so long and tortuous that it is difficult to know what to include and what to leave out. You know what, if you don’t already know the story–count yourself lucky and skip this post! How’s that for an introduction?

Brian Deer took a closer look than most (all?) journalists at Dr. Wakefield’s story. He exposed the fact that Dr. Wakefield’s patients were litigants claiming MMR caused autism. He also exposed the fact that Dr. Wakefield and some on his team were well paid for their efforts.

It is very likely that Mr. Deer’s investigation is what prompted the General Medical Council (GMC) to investigate Dr. Wakefield’s actions in this research. As part of that investigation, the GMC has collected medical histories of the subjects of Dr. Wakefield’s study. And, Brian Deer has had access to these data, and they don’t match what was presented by Dr. Wakefield’s team.

Before we look at what was said in the papers and what the medical histories actually indicated, let’s look at the introduction from the original Lancet paper:

We saw several children who, after a period of apparent normality, lost acquired skills, including communication. They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and bloating and, in some cases, food intolerance. We describe the clinical findings, and gastrointestinal features of these children.

Compare that to what’s here’s Brian Deer’s article, MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

Ouch.

Here’s a more thorough article, again by Mr. Deer:

Hidden records show MMR truth
A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination

As a short sidetrack, Mr. Deer isn’t the only one suggesting that there were problems with the Wakefield studies.

Wakefield claimed (in a separate paper from the original Lancet article) that his team found evidence of persistent measles virus in gut biopsies from the autistic children he saw. In the Omnibus hearing, a member of Wakefield’s team told the story of how the data which clearly disagreed with Wakefield’s conclusions was ignored.

Or, to put it another way, Dr. Chadwick [note correction] told Dr. Wakefield that he (Bustin) had data which directly contradicted the results Wakefield was going to publish. This should have quashed the paper, and, yet, not mention is even made of it by Wakefield et al.

But, back to the Brian Deer report.

Let’s look at a few examples from Mr. Deer’s story. There were 12 children in the original study. Mr. Deer refers to them as child 1 through child 12. Mr. Deer looks at them individually..

Child 11 had a “positive” test for measles RNA by Wakefield’s team. The father had 3–yes 3!–other labs test the same biopsy samples. Result? No sign of measles.

Here’s a bit about child one from Mr. Deer’s story:

In the paper this claim would be adopted, with Wakefield and his team reporting that Child One’s parents said “behavioural symptoms” started “one week” after he received the MMR.

The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.

It’s very tempting to quote example after example, but I’ll just end up copying the entire story. I encourage you to read the story, there are numerous examples of how many of the 12 subjects of Wakefield’s study were not previously normal.

Rather than pick all the examples of discrepancies about development of Wakefield’s subjects, how about the second part of the question: did these kids all show GI problems? Again, there are numerous examples in Mr. Deer’s story. Here’s an excerpt.

The most striking change of opinion came in the case of Child Three, a six-year-old from Huyton, Merseyside. He was reported in the journal to be suffering from regressive autism and bowel disease: specifically “acute and chronic nonspecific colitis”. The boy’s hospital discharge summary, however, said there was nothing untoward in his biopsy.

A Royal Free consultant pathologist questioned a draft text of the paper. “I was somewhat concerned with the use of the word ‘colitis’,” Susan Davies, a co-author, told the ongoing GMC inquiry into the ethics of how the children were treated, in September 2007.

“I was concerned that what we had seen in these children was relatively minor.”

Not only are there problems in the reported information and the records, one of the co-authors is indicating that the paper overplayed the data they had.

Sorry, but this all just makes me more sad. Sometimes bad science can be, well a little funny. Sometimes just annoying. This is just really sad.

“A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination”

What more can be said?

(note: I edited this shortly after publishing it. The substance was not changed)

Advertisements

395 Responses to “Wakefield”

  1. Yellowriver February 13, 2009 at 20:44 #

    Kev says
    Brian, some parents of autistic kids will never forget the work and effort you put in this case and we’ll always be grateful to you for doing it.

    Sorry to say Kev but you and some other autistic parents who see Brian Deer as your saviour are sadly conned and mis-guided by this person who is only out for himself. He has no compassion for children who have been damaged by the MMR. I am not an anti-vaxxer, sadly further from the truth.

    And yes time will tell, whose telling the truth here.

  2. Brian Deer though the looking glass February 13, 2009 at 20:48 #

    Rule of veto – now there’s a surprise
    That’s Brian’s problem – we will not shhhh
    We will not go quietly into the night
    We will one day have our day in court
    We will one day see him convicted as the accessory he is

  3. Dedj February 13, 2009 at 20:57 #

    “And yes time will tell, whose telling the truth here.”

    It already has.

    Remember, the last time someone challnged Brian over ‘the truth’ they made such a bad hash of it they actually ended up being heavily, heavily slated by the judge on several points, including points of basic legal etiquette and logic.

    Watching people cling on to the ‘Brian Deer is a nasty, nasty man’ canard is painfully sad to watch.

  4. Yellowriver February 13, 2009 at 21:01 #

    “And yes time will tell, whose telling the truth here

    I repeat this, just in case you didn’t get it the first time.

  5. Kev February 13, 2009 at 21:11 #

    Thats your prerogative Yellowriver. In the meantime, whilst you carry on crying about a total non-event, the rest of us will try to get autism science back on track.

    So far, your science has been exposed as wrong, your ‘hero’ is exposed as something of a fraud and you just lost a legal challenge that didn’t even have to be _that_ scientific.

    You can wait from now until kingdom come my friend. The science will never support you.

  6. Dedj February 13, 2009 at 21:11 #

    Stating something twice does not make it true, nor does repetition adress the rebuttals to what you post.

    Holding out for ‘Teh trUtH!1!’ when every scrap of reliable evidence indicates the opposite, doesn’t make you sage or wise, just mentally contispated.

    Brian Deer could be the nastiest, most obnoxious man this side of the Boston Kitten Strangler, out only for his own glory and a shower of blowjobs. This wouldn’t make what he says about Wakefield untrue – you have to catch someone in a lie before you can call them a liar – you don’t call them a liar then use that to say they are talking lies.

  7. Kev February 13, 2009 at 21:13 #

    Alf – the MMR stupidity had its day in court. Weren’t you watching what happened?

  8. Sullivan February 13, 2009 at 21:13 #

    Ah, let’s question Mr. Deer’s motives and avoid the real elephant in the room: bad science with real life public health consequences.

    How much money and time has been wasted on chasing the MMR question in research? What would the world look like today for people with autism if that money had been applied to something more fruitful?

    Time has already told that Dr. Wakefield’s version of the ‘truth’ was inaccurate.

  9. Joseph February 13, 2009 at 21:26 #

    And yes time will tell, whose telling the truth here.

    Time will tell? It’s already clear who is reliable in their claims and who is not.

    For example:

    David Kirby claims Brian Deer initiated the GMC hearings – proven false.

    Wakefield launches libel suit against Brian Deer – needs to back down after documents are produced.

    Need more examples?

    I’ve been watching these debates for many years and I can say this. No honest person can look at this debate and say there’s moral equivalence in the positions.

  10. JosephS February 13, 2009 at 22:26 #

    “the rest of us will try to get autism science back on track.”

    What autism science? You’ve had 65 years and no ones any the wiser. We keep getting told what it is not. Many mothers are pointing you in a direction but because they have no valid scienific argument in your eyes its considered rubbish. Any doctor willing to persue an answer will be supported. Any genuine takers?

  11. One Queer Fish February 13, 2009 at 22:35 #

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/did-the-department-of-justice-tip-off-brian-deer.html#more

    Dear Mr. Handley

    I found your article quite troubling , that by the simple fact , that it seems to affirm collusion between Mr.Brian Deer and the Dept of DOJ.

    But it is Deer statement , that made my blood run cold ;
    “That said, I’m also very proud that, like the GMC, the US government sought my help in mounting its case in Cedillo, copiously borrowing pages of evidence from my website and displaying some in court”

    There is a glee in his word , that I found very disturbing ,

    Somoene shouls ask him , what this poor handicap girl did to him , to justify his perverse satifaction of being involve in destroying her chance of getting some financial compensation for a vaccine adverse reaction events .

    I have great difficulty with this type of
    behavior ,

    Pierre Morin
    Montreal Quebec canada

  12. Kev February 13, 2009 at 22:51 #

    JosephS – you seem to mistake accuracy with speed. No one said its going to be fast. And you know what? If you were expecting to put in money and an easy answer to pop out thats just too fucking bad.

    A search of PubMed reveals 13394 papers on autism dating back to 1947. This shit is difficult. That doesn’t mean that valid, helpful treatments/interventions/whatever aren’t necessary or not worth pursuing.

    The scientific worth of ‘many mothers’ is about the same worth as a chocolate teapot by the way.

  13. JosephS February 13, 2009 at 23:23 #

    No mistake, it’s a fact and no one’s rushing you here. I just think energies could be better spent. “That’s just too fucking bad” & “This shit is difficult” are they scientific terms?
    Again, “The scientific worth of ‘many mothers’ is about the same worth as a chocolate teapot by the way.”
    So, blatantly not going to be considered then?
    Maybe those 13394 papers have been looking in the wrong places (allegedly)

  14. Yellowriver February 13, 2009 at 23:34 #

    “This shit is difficult”

    Can you please explain what “shit” you are refering to.

    Its not by any chance, the state of our children’s bowel problems?

  15. Isabella Thomas February 13, 2009 at 23:41 #

    Brian,

    ‘Ms Thomas, of course, is one of the individuals who KNOWS FOR A CERTAIN FACT that data on children was changed and misreported in the Lancet’

    What do you mean by the above comment?

  16. JosephS February 13, 2009 at 23:43 #

    No mistake, it’s a fact and no one’s rushing you here. I just think energies could be better spent. “That’s just too fucking bad” & “This shit is difficult” are they scientific terms?
    Again, “The scientific worth of ‘many mothers’ is about the same worth as a chocolate teapot by the way.”
    So, blatantly not going to be considered then?
    Maybe, the 13394 papers have been looking in the wrong places (allegedly)

  17. Isabella Thomas February 13, 2009 at 23:53 #

    Brian Deer,

    ‘I think, for example, the British department of health should simply seize the medical records of the Lancet children, analyse them and pass the matter to the director of public prosecutions’.

    Is that what you did, Brian Deer? seize the children’s medical notes and quote in the Sunday Times taking it out of context?
    Is that what you are doing using sick children as pawns to attack Dr. Wakefield?
    Never mess with parents in the USA and the UK with sick children who saw the pain and suffering after vaccines. Bad idea I think.

  18. Sullivan February 14, 2009 at 00:19 #

    OMG,

    someone is accusing Deer of using children as pawns? Please–Wakefield appears to have fabricated key pieces of his research. If that isn’t using sick kids as pawns, nothing is.

    If you think Mr. Deer took the information “out of context”, can you find some context in which the facts that Mr. Deer presented would shine well on Dr. Wakefield? I can’t even imagine of any.

  19. Brian Deer February 14, 2009 at 00:31 #

    In some ways I regret that I didn’t write reports on the GMC hearing as the evidence was laid down. Much of it was fascinating, and of course not reported by the crank who was enlisted for this purpose by the anti-vaxxers. All he managed was to mislead.

    There was the case of one mother, for instance, whose story is now in the public domain and entirely reportable, who had two children. Her GP gave evidence that he believed she obsessively sought unnecessary treatment for the children, to their detriment. He said he felt she was harming their interests. She fell out with her local hospital, and with a previous GP, who were not convinced by her. The Royal Free was so concerned by her behaviour that Simon Murch went on a special 60-mile trip to see her local doctors to discuss her case. The RFH were at their wits’ end with this mother.

    Neither of her children had diagnoses of autism, and both had histories of fits before their MMR. Curiously, both appeared in a national newspaper, photographed looking straight into the camera. Even more curiously, both appeared, anonymised, in the Lancet paper as cases of regressive autism, with the first behavioural symptoms days after MMR.

    According to the evidence, the mother declared that the children’s behaviour was greatly improveed on bowel anti-inflammatories. This triggered Wakefield’s bizarre notion that autism might be an inflammatory bowel disease. I kid thee not. Later, she changed her mind.

    Much later, this mother kept turning up at court hearings to oppose the release of information that would have informed the public debate about MMR, because she knew that this information – including O’Leary’s expert report, and Bustin’s expert report – would tell a story she didn’t want to hear. “La la la, can’t hear you!”

    There is a reckoning coming, I think. Skulking behind medical confidentiality, legal privilege and hapless kids won’t do it forever. There is a public interest here, and that, I think, will eventually prevail.

    No consequential aspect of anything I have written on the MMR/Wakefield topic in the last five years has been shown to be in error in any way. Had it been, I would have corrected the record which is summarised at my website:

    http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

    I haven’t yet updated with last weekend’s material, but will get to that in due course.

    [note: link corrected by Sullivan]

  20. Brian Deer February 14, 2009 at 00:34 #

    Link error, corrected:

    http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

  21. Dedj February 14, 2009 at 01:54 #

    A: This is about Wakefield, not the parents (except those that involve themselves as in the case above). Research anonmymity exists precisely for the protection of the subjects from the debate over the data.

    If it is true that the parents are honestly convinced of the connection and really have undergone ‘pain and suffering’, this still has no reflection on the data. Same as for the majority of research papers out there.

    B: Even if the parents were involved in this (beyond being parents of the subjects), and Brian Deer was ‘attacking the parents’, there is no law that disallows his comments, or invalidates them.

  22. Joseph February 14, 2009 at 04:07 #

    Somoene shouls ask him , what this poor handicap girl did to him , to justify his perverse satifaction of being involve in destroying her chance of getting some financial compensation for a vaccine adverse reaction events.

    This is concern trolling of the same type Harold Doherty likes to do, i.e. take someone’s words and assign a clearly ridiculous motive to them.

    Besides, to accept the above argument one would have to assume that autistic children deserve compensation merely for being autistic, regardless of causation.

    I’m all for it. Propose that all disabled persons should get $1 million merely for being disabled. In fact, to me this seems more likely to succeed and more honorable than concocting nonsense causation hypotheses and conspiracy theories.

  23. Isabella Thomas February 14, 2009 at 08:58 #

    Deja,

    You said Research anonmymity exists precisely for the protection of the subjects from the debate over the data.

    So why did Brian Deer have the names of the Lancet children, their dates of birth and the dates they went into hospital on his web-site for months?

  24. Kev February 14, 2009 at 11:41 #

    Asshats: the next one of you who does what Joseph correctly labels as ‘concern trolling’ is going to get banned. My website isn’t a democracy. ‘k?

    Ms Thomas: I’ll tell you whats sick. Sick is perforating the bowel of a child in numerous places in an effort to dig up material for a court case.

    What the hell is wrong with you people? Are you stuck in your ruts or just plain old stupid?

  25. One Queer Fish February 14, 2009 at 12:35 #

    So is Mr Deer along with the Federal Courts an Autism denialist .If my memory serves me correctly the Anna Polling Vaccine Autism link admitted in the US courts..strange?

    I mean the vaccine neurodevelopmental damage is well documented despite the blanking of evidence by Mr Deer..Dr Wakefield has just said this

    He said the Thoughtful House sees more than 2,000 children a year “and is thriving.” The ruling “won’t influence our research program,” he said, holding steadfast to his theories.

    I think its all a last ditch panic to get as many of these Vccine cases finalised before Obama and the Kennedys kick in and sort out the Pharma Cartel for good..borrowed time everyone on here its a past era.

  26. nina lteif February 14, 2009 at 12:46 #

    well i know who I believe , and as for medical science its about time health care professionals in general started to help our children with autism especially these so called Dr’s, at least wakefield cares whats Brian Deers story? Oh and did you also did you know autism is treatable ……..
    we know we are doing it.

  27. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 13:08 #

    Mr Deer

    Thank you for the correction concerning the assertion that you initiated the complaint before the GMC concerning Dr. Wakefield.

    I am still concerned though that your material would be used directly by a tribunal and that you would be publishing opinion pieces using the same material as the tribunal continues its proceedings.

  28. Yellowriver February 14, 2009 at 14:12 #

    Asshats: the next one of you who does what Joseph correctly labels as ‘concern trolling’ is going to get banned. My website isn’t a democracy. ‘k?

    That says it all Kev.
    Just about your level. did you look that one up or did you make it up yourself. I have no time for silly language, I have more important things to do with my life than go on your blog.

    So goodbye from me.

  29. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 14:15 #

    Yellowriver

    You have to excuse Kev. He is used to posters who agree with him, praise him and prop him up. He is not used to posters who disagree with his ideological perspective.

  30. Brian Deer February 14, 2009 at 14:33 #

    Harold,

    U say:

    “I am still concerned though that your material would be used directly by a tribunal and that you would be publishing opinion pieces using the same material as the tribunal continues its proceedings.”

    (a) They didn’t use my material. Under the 1983 medical act, they acquired all their own material, key portions of which I had previously and separately acquired. They also acquired material from dozens of other sources, including parents, one of whom gave evidence for the GMC.

    (b)I am a reporter. I have written no recent opinion pieces. I have exposed the fact that data in the Lancet study was repeatedly changed and misreported, creating the appearance of a possible link between MMR and autism.

    (c)The materials I have supplied to the GMC do not include materials on the children. The GMC acquired this material for itself, using its extensive powers under the medical act to seize documents.

    (d)Malicious liars and cranks fabricated the suggestion that I was reporting my own allegations. There are a number of such individuals who appear to gain some kind of emotional satisfaction in spreading confusion among vulnerable people. The amount of frank lying in this whole affair is bottomless.

  31. century February 14, 2009 at 14:45 #

    Brian said

    “Malicious liars and cranks”

    Priceless irony 😉

  32. One Queer Fish February 14, 2009 at 14:56 #

    If Mr Deer is so right why is the Autism community against him so much Mr Deer writes on the defensive, sees Autistic subjects to be mocked as compensation seekers,etc when in fact all they are trying to do is obtain funding that would help treat the kids they once had but have now lost to autism surely as a parent he must recognise this that if the goverments world wide treated these children as Dr Wakefield does probably zero of these cases would be in court trying to force goverments to treat the sick children..but then again Mr Deers services would not be needed by the GMC and the US courts

  33. One Queer Fish February 14, 2009 at 15:04 #

    I would love to see someone present some of Mr Deer’s actual evidence provided to back up his latest accusations

  34. Joseph February 14, 2009 at 15:25 #

    I would love to see someone present some of Mr Deer’s actual evidence provided to back up his latest accusations

    Are you sure you’d love to see that? You’re extremely naive if you think that evidence won’t ever make it to the public domain. Any objective observer would simply consider UK libel laws and Brian Deer’s track record vs. Wakefield.

  35. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 16:21 #

    Mr. Deer

    I again thank you for your response. I realize that this topic has generated considerable hostility, some of which has been been aimed at you, and some unfair criticisms.

    Perhaps I misunderstood your previous comment to me in which you stated:

    “The GMC asked me for my journalistic evidence arising from published stories. It was my public duty to supply my findings to this statutory regulator.”

    I understood your comment to mean that the GMC actually used your information: “journalistic evidence arising from published stories”?

    On the opinion comment, I understand that you are a journalist but journalists often publish articles which include both facts and opinions based in whole or in part on the facts found. In the recent Sunday Times Article you stated:

    “THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.”

    That lead statement from your article appears to me to be a statement of opinion. When I read your article it states that there are differences between the subject children’s medical records and the description of relevant items from those records as published in the “Wakefield” Lancet paper. Assuming that your investigation facts support those conclusions, the conclusions themselves do not appear to demonstrate that Dr. Wakefield actually “changed and misreported results in his research” or if so, that he did so intentionally as implied by your opening statement.

    In any event I thank you for your professionalism and courtesy in responding to my previous comment.

  36. alyric February 14, 2009 at 16:48 #

    Mr Deer

    While I’m glad you have been able to clarify your position, be aware that Mr Doherty is our resident concern troll. You can see as much from the blanket of ad hominem attacks on just about every poster here that Harold has made. Yet he wants to be taken seriously. I wouldn’t bother.

  37. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 16:52 #

    alyric

    Thank you for the ad hominem attack.

    I am sure that if Mr. Deer wishes to respond to my questions he is capable of doing so on his own.

  38. Brian Deer February 14, 2009 at 16:59 #

    The biggest irony here is that the cranks and malicious liars have caught themselves out, such that anybody of moderate intelligence can deduce where the truth lies.

    If I am as central to the GMC’s case as the cranks and liars say, why would I publish a front page and two inside pages story which wasn’t true? Indeed, if it wasn’t substantially true it would be a very serious libel indeed, and bound to be found out. It would amount to professional suicide.

    If what I published is misleading (and it isn’t) the GMC panel (two lay members and three doctors) would see that I had published a baseless story. They, after all, have the children’s medical records (at least for 11 of them). Given the number of times they have reviewed this material, the data probably stalks their dreams.

    Why would I put my name to something that would defeat myself? Obviously I wouldn’t.
    Although there is no risk of prejudice to the hearing (GMC panels are deemed by the court of appeal to be beyond prejudice, providing they are properly advised), there could be no possible explanation as to why I would publish gross falsehoods that are open to such intense scrutiny by the panel of a statutory inquiry.

    The content of my story – including huge chunks of data on the children, and the mismatches with the Lancet – is also open to scrutiny by no less than five Queen’s Counsel and their teams, most of whom have read the children’s records over and over.

    The allegations, moreover, were put to Wakefield’s solicitors, who have sat through the GMC case (and also handled his ill-fated libel adventure), and they did not respond in terms suggesting that they didn’t recognize the facts I put to them. They most certainly would have done so were it the case that what I said was in any substantial way untrue. They would have issued the sternest libel warning and declared squarely that what I said was unrecognizable to them.

    All we got was a no comment, a wrong suggestion of prejudice, and, a day later, a typically sly Wakefield note – clearly without legal advice – seeking to reassure those to whom he looks for his lavish lifestyle.

    His note reminded me of his past statements claiming that he wasn’t paid by lawyers for his research and that he never planned his own measles vaccine. The truth on both of these issues is proven, in the public domain, beyond question. You may also care to note that almost all of the trustees of his Visceral registered charity in the UK have resigned in the wake of my previous revelations, as has his UK publicist. I think they were genuinely shocked.

    Eventually, all the relevant data will be published in great detail. I’m not sure that some of the posters here will be too happy about that. But it’s just a matter of time, as I think Wakefield knows.

    Anybody uncertain as to where the truth lies should perhaps think this one through again.

  39. Yellowriver February 14, 2009 at 16:59 #

    Thanks Harold
    This is who you are dealing with.

    There’s always the awards video on youtube. And the loser is……….

  40. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 17:14 #

    Mr. Deer

    Notwithstanding personal attack against me by some of this forum’s regulars, I appreciate your comments here.

    I do not accuse you of misleading any more than I accuse Dr. Wakefield of fraud. I do say that based on what I read in your Sunday Times article you have expressed an opinion concerning Dr. Wakefields actions.

    You may well have facts to substantiate your opinions but I did not see those facts reflected in your article.

    I am sure you are very busy and I again thank you for taking the time to respond with candor and courtesy as you have done.

  41. JosephS February 14, 2009 at 17:35 #

    Mr Deer – Constantly tarring people as anti-vaxxers is a fallacy, blown up by well, let’s just say the media in general. The massive majority, of persons campaigning this MMR issue believed in the vaccination programme and have taken vaccinations during their lives and presented their children to receive them. Certain harrowing events following vaccinations can and do happen in life which, make you instinctively think twice when it affects you personally and you tend to warn others of the adverse reactions. Adverse reactions of which, are known. This warning action is apparently considered irresponsible by many. Scaremongering as you and your peers call it. You state “the crank”, excuse me for this and the following statements, but the term suits you better than it does him and he wasn’t enlisted by anti-vaxxers. As for your belittling of this mother of two children. You’ve painted a very tardy picture here accusing this woman as one who has kicked off the whole affair even though there were around 800 parents in waiting for litigation proceedings before Wakefield and more behind those. You state that the two children…. “Curiously, both appeared in a national newspaper, photographed looking straight into the camera” Surely you are not suggesting that this is conclusive proof of not having autism?
    “the mother declared that the children’s behaviour was greatly improved on bowel anti-inflammatories. This triggered Wakefield’s bizarre notion that autism might be an inflammatory bowel disease. I kid thee not.” For God’s sake give thyself a rest. So are you now suggesting that this mother of two is responsible for Dr Wakefield’s involvement in the first place?
    “No consequential aspect of anything I have written on the MMR/Wakefield topic in the last five years has been shown to be in error in any way.” Priceless. Next you’ll be crying out, I singly put an end to the MMR anti-vaccine lobby all around the world. It was you wot done that and its sad.
    I’m away to get a tetanus

  42. John Stone February 14, 2009 at 18:19 #

    Mr Deer

    I quote Mr Justice Eady’s judgement which is legally binding on you, in which he was simply laying out the facts of the case uncontested by you:

    “3. Well before the programme was broadcast Mr Deer had made a complaint to the GMC about the Claimant. His communications were made on 25 February, 12 March and 1 July 2004 …. it seems likely that a hearing will take place commencing in July 2007 and lasting for many weeks. ”

    If these letters were not complaints perhaps you would be good enough to post them on your website forthwith to clarify matters.

    John Stone

  43. Dedj February 14, 2009 at 19:00 #

    A: Firstly, Brian Deer isn’t bound by the research ethics of the original paper. If he has published confidential data of sufficient quality to identify the subjects (which there appears to be no evidence for) the breach of confidentiality lies with the supplier of the data.

    Publishing confidential data is not the same as breach of confidentiality, if it was, vignettes and case studies (an important tool to learning in the health professions) would not be possible. Nor would tribunals for that matter.

    B: Lack of joint attention is a classical sign of autism. Looking at a camera requires joint attention, or an ability to abstractly identify and respond to the camera, or direction. Responding appropriately and spontaniously may be more difficult for people with autism, although it’s not neccisarily a convincing factor.

    C: If there are people involved in MMR skepticism who are not anti-vaccine, then they very rarely show their faces round here. Or in any of the major curebie organisations. Such people are rare, although many more people claim to be one than actually are.

    D: As I’ve said before, Harold undoubtadly thinks he’s upstanding in a debate and willing to immerse himself in the to-and-fro. To counter this, a number of people alledge that he fails to provide quotes or references (even when the article is on the same webpage) , routinely niggles his opponents, uses his reputation (very little is comparison to the majority of his targets) as leverage, and fails to internalise rebuttals.

    This does include people who have only debated with him once and had no idea who he was, right up to internationally known researchers and academic, as well as a national director for a internationally known autism charity. The general opinion is that he is a ‘concern troll’

  44. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 19:06 #

    Dedj

    Why all the personal attacks?

    They add nothing to the discussion.

  45. One Queer Fish February 14, 2009 at 19:14 #

    “Mr Deer The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth Please!”

    Mr Deer says
    However, on the point she raises: David Eady was wrong. I have never denied sending materials – at their request – to the GMC. Many people have done this. However, I am not the complainant in the case, which was brought on the GMC’s own initiative. However, on the point she raises: David Eady was wrong. I have never denied sending materials – at their request – to the GMC. Many people have done this. However, I am not the complainant in the case, which was brought on the GMC’s own initiative.

  46. Dedj February 14, 2009 at 19:18 #

    E: a ‘complaint’ refers to an official complaint made through the FTP directorate. Moaning letters don’t count.

    Even if Brian Deer had made a complaint about Wakefield, it does not neccisarily mean he is ‘the complainant’ in the current case.

    Even if he is, the current hearing is unrelated to the current allegations.

  47. One Queer Fish February 14, 2009 at 19:22 #

    Dedj
    Your point below Mr Deer had I remeber at one time had the first names ,surnames and Legal Aid certificates on his site for over two years “Lancet children”

    You see the truth is out there but it jusnt isnt being admitted to by Mr Deer.
    Funnily enough these chickens always come home to roost

    A: Firstly, Brian Deer isn’t bound by the research ethics of the original paper. If he has published confidential data of sufficient quality to identify the subjects (which there appears to be no evidence for) the breach of confidentiality lies with the supplier of the data.

  48. Dedj February 14, 2009 at 19:29 #

    “They add nothing to the discussion.”

    Yet you’ve used several already. And you’ve used several unsubstantiated ones against Dr Chew and Michelle Dawson as well as the aforementioned director. This include cases were the article attracting the ad hominem was located on the same webpage but remained unquoted by yourself.

    Anyway, your comments can be basically paraphrased thus: “I don’t believe Brian Deer”

    Brian Deer has clearly laid out what data Wakefield was supposed to have changed. He has laid out what this means for Wakefields arguement. He has clearly laid out a logical chain by which the exact things you claim ‘don’t follow’ do , in fact, directly follow from his allegations.

    It is not ‘not adding’ to a discussion to indicate that a participant to a discusssion is detracting (or can only detract) from the discussion, or to inform and advise the most important participant (Brian Deer) that further correspondance with that person will only be a further distraction.

  49. One Queer Fish February 14, 2009 at 19:41 #

    Oh! yes, as the Churchill dog says but wheres the evidence?
    Brian Deer has clearly laid out what data Wakefield was supposed to have changed. He has laid out what this means for Wakefields arguement. He has clearly laid out a logical chain by which the exact things you claim ‘don’t follow’ do , in fact, directly follow from his allegations.

  50. Clay February 14, 2009 at 19:43 #

    Harold said:

    “Why all the personal attacks?”

    Probably because we’re tired of your sorry ass. Hit the road, Jack, and doncha come back no more.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: